Quoth "Richard O'Keefe" <ok at cs.otago.ac.nz>,
[ ... re " Why would you write
an upper bound of 0.3 on a list if you don't expect that to be included
in the result? " ]
> Because upper bounds are *UPPER BOUNDS* and are NOT as a rule included
> in the result. If you write [0,2..9] you
> - DO expect 0 in the result
> - DON'T expect 9 in the result
> - would be outraged if 10 were in the result.
Pardon the questions from the gallery, but ... I can sure see that
0.3 shouldn't be included in the result by overshooting the limit
(i.e., 0.30000000000000004), and the above expectations about
[0,2..9] are obvious enough, but now I have to ask about [0,2..8] -
would you not expect 8 in the result? Or is it not an upper bound?
Donn